How do you detect "design"?

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't argue for the love of arguments.

Most of what I have seen from you are claims, but when you do argue, it has often been on misinformed versions of the topics under discussion. Like your former claim that evolution consists of claims of intelligent life spontaneously forming on a barren world without life.

My comments are simple because I am used to conversing with simple people.

I don't believe that you are talking to simple people and I reject that claim on the basis of the evidence. You seem to be trying to establish your personal interpretation of things you believe as the "truth" without bother of demonstrating anything. You seem to want your "truth" to be accepted without question as if it is established fact.

Even were I talking to people that I thought were simple I would have the curtesy to respond to them directly and not hide.

I don't need to take my dialogue to any kind of laboratory to be dissected; They are easy ideas to understand.

You brought your monologue to the laboratory of the public domain where things are always dissected.

There are many things that human beings cannot perceive in any way

Just saying that means that you perceive them as existing and contradict your own claim.

, whether due to the type of magnitude, the dimension of that magnitude, the closeness/distance of the object, etc.

Don't I make myself understood easily?

You do make yourself easily understood, unfortunately it is not about what you claim, hence my questions.

 

[Eli G]

I have no interest in continue explaining myself when I think I already did.
We don't have to agree if you think so, and it's Ok.
Have a good day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no interest in continue explaining myself when I think I already did.

It seems more like you have no interest in explaining yourself at all. In effect, you remove yourself from the discussion of your own accord I would say. I think that is a reasonable assessment of the evidence.

We don't have to agree if you think so, and it's Ok.

I can only assume you are talking to me and find it strange considering how strong you feel your position is. Your method of communicating seems to rob your position of strength and give me much reason to doubt your claims or that you have a sound basis to disagree.

Have a good day.

I haven't been feeling well lately. Very bad cold. But talking to you has made my day. Thank you so much for that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no interest in continue explaining myself when I think I already did.
We don't have to agree if you think so, and it's Ok.
Have a good day.

Since you have declared that you are unwilling to support your position and explain it, do you mind if others just ignore it as irrelevant?

 

[leroy]

How am I "playing semantics"?



It is in fact what defines a QR as a QR. So identifying a QR a QR is already an acknowledgement of exactly that.
So when you attempt to scan the image, you have already recognized it as a QR. Why else would you scan it?


Now who's playing semantics?

If I type random letters into a QR generator, is the resulting QR then suddenly a non-manufactured object?
Remember the context of the OP please.

Why do you have to do this long boring and tedious.

I was challenged (by you or by someone else, I don’t remember) to :

1 Provide an example of something that is not known if it was designed or not

And then

2 apply the SC test to see if it was designed.

..

The example that I picked was the data that one inserts in to the QR generator. ……(this data could be designed or non-designed)

If you apply the test (if it opens a website for example) then you can conclude SC and therefore design.

Why don’t you simply admit explicitly that the challenge was answered successfully? So that we can move to a different topic?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you have to do this long boring and tedious.

I was challenged (by you or by someone else, I don’t remember) to :

1 Provide an example of something that is not known if it was designed or not

And then

2 apply the SC test to see if it was designed.

..

The example that I picked was the data that one inserts in to the QR generator. ……(this data could be designed or non-designed)

If you apply the test (if it opens a website for example) then you can conclude SC and therefore design.

Why don’t you simply admit explicitly that the challenge was answered successfully? So that we can move to a different topic?

So you are back.
Well, the problem is that the computer you use for the QR and its code are all designed.
So explain the relationship for the universe as both a designed computer, QR and QR code? Which parts of the universe are what parts in your example?

 

[Eli G]

... Why don’t you simply admit explicitly that the challenge was answered successfully? So that we can move to a different topic?

That's asking a miracle. It just doesn't happen in this forum.

 

[Pogo]

Why do you have to do this long boring and tedious.

I was challenged (by you or by someone else, I don’t remember) to :

1 Provide an example of something that is not known if it was designed or not

And then

2 apply the SC test to see if it was designed.

..

The example that I picked was the data that one inserts in to the QR generator. ……(this data could be designed or non-designed)

If you apply the test (if it opens a website for example) then you can conclude SC and therefore design.

Why don’t you simply admit explicitly that the challenge was answered successfully? So that we can move to a different topic?

I started it, and you demonstrated that SC is worthless as a design detection method.

Which one of these is SC and why?

 

[Copernicus]

Here is a termite cathedral. Was it intelligently designed or not? If it was, who designed it? If not, how can it be distinguished from the intelligent design of the Sagrada Familia? Are there termite blueprints somewhere? A termite version of Gaudi?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is a name that I can find no valid reason to see it persist.

You're referring to evolutionist.

It's not a word that I use or have a use for, either, but it does serve as a shibboleth. It usually identifies a creationist and rather quickly.

Think about how many words and phrases instantly help us know who we are talking with. "It's only a theory," "cats don't give birth to dogs," "macroevolution," "scientism," and "materialist." Any of those tell me that I am likely not dealing with a critical thinker.

When I see the word "Christendom," the odds are high that it came from a Jehovah's Witness. I've used it myself (here, near the bottom, for example), but have decided to give it up for that reason.

You're probably also aware that there are a few for identifying a Canadian. "Eh?" is famous that way. So is pronouncing the last letter of the alphabet zed rather than zee, or saying a-BOOT rather than a-BOWT or BEAN in place of BIN for the word been.

that seems like a play on words to me.

Really? I thought it was a rebuttal. You had written, "It is logical to deduce that if something is sufficiently complex it is because it has been designed."

Nothing changes from what I said before.

That's unfortunate, and apparently incorrect. You also wrote this after seeing that rebuttal: "Obviously there are processes that are complex and natural" That sounds like you're now agreeing with me that unqualified complexity alone doesn't signify intelligent design.

 

[Eli G]

Here is a termite cathedral. Was it intelligently designed or not? If it was, who designed it? If not, how can it be distinguished from the intelligent design of the Sagrada Familia? Are there termite blueprints somewhere? A termite version of Gaudi?

The instinctive intelligence of ants is what demonstrates design.

 

[Copernicus]

The instinctive intelligence of ants is what demonstrates design.

No, that particular cathedral just resembled a human structure by happenstance. The actual construction is just an example of how patterns can emerge through repeated low level chaotic interactions. In this case, they paste dung together to form the structures, but they don't all look like churches or cathedrals. That is just a nickname. The structure emerges gradually. The "design" is not planned, although humans see a pattern that resembles the kinds of structures that they build.

Meet the builders.

 

[Eli G]

No, that particular cathedral just resembled a human structure by happenstance. The actual construction is just an example of how patterns can emerge through repeated low level chaotic interactions. ...

I think that's a hasty conclusion.

IMO, the only way for there to be order from some chaos is for there to be an internal law since the very beginning of that chaos (???), which allows each thing to end up falling under its own weight.

We know that there are evils that produce benefits, such as the restoration of the soil after a fire.

Laws need a legislator.

 

[Pogo]

The instinctive intelligence of ants is what demonstrates design.

Looks designed to me.
Instinctive intelligence of ______?

 

[Eli G]

In nature there are already established laws that no one can change.

For example, we know that the sun, moon and stars can place us in time and space. If the celestial bodies did not follow the laws with which they were created, they would not serve to help us receive the sensation of the stability of time, the seasons, the years, the months, the days,...

We can know what the phase of the moon will be, or whatever it was, thousands of years apart from our current moment... because the laws with which the moon moves are stable.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that's a hasty conclusion.

No, it is a conclusion based on knowledge of the processes by which termites construct the mounds. The mounds can take on various shapes, but that one just happened to resemble something a human might design.

IMO, the only way for there to be order from some chaos is for there to be an internal law since the very beginning of that chaos (???), which allows each thing to end up falling under its own weight.

We don't need your opinion. The principles under which interacting components give rise to emergent patterns of order in chaotic deterministic systems are well understood in chaos theory. We can demonstrate them with computer programs that run cellular automata. These same techniques also allow us to simulate patterns that we observe over time in populations of self-replicating biological organisms--evolution.

We know that there are evils that produce benefits, such as the restoration of the soil after a fire.

Laws need a legislator.

You are the victim of a metaphor. Human laws are prescribed or legislated. Natural or scientific laws are not. They are just predictive patterns that scientists observe and describe as part of a theoretical framework. When patterns are observed that seem to violate the laws, scientists come up with better theories to predict and explain the anomalies. No legislators are needed to help, although human legislators have been known to act as if they could repeal natural laws.

 

[F1fan]

The instinctive intelligence of ants is what demonstrates design.

As they evolved to do.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, science as you use it is metaphysical naturalism as far as I can tell. I do it as methodological naturalism.
You know that the uinverse is natural. I acts as if it is and learn from that. Then I use other versions than your cultural version of science, because I have learn that there is sicence, natural science, soical science and human science. That is a different cultural version.
So you believe in one version of knowledge. I believe in another. And yet, we are both in the apparent everyday world.

So now you only have to prove that I am not really communicating with you about different subjective understandings of what knowledge is.

I would like to comment on your comments above. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the universe is natural. I am not saying it is not natural, similar to grass growing, but I believe it came or started from a superior divine intelligent force.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would like to comment on your comments above. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the universe is natural. I am not saying it is not natural, similar to grass growing, but I believe it came or started from a superior divine intelligent force.

Ihave promised @TagliatelliMonster not to derail the thread with that, so I won't answer here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you have to do this long boring and tedious.

My irony meter just exploded.
It's YOU who's insisting that QR codes can somehow be natural as opposed to designed/manufactured objects.
I'm only replying because YOU are insisting on making these ridiculous statements.

If you would stop to say such ridiculous things, there would be no need for me to point them out.

I was challenged (by you or by someone else, I don’t remember) to :

1 Provide an example of something that is not known if it was designed or not

And then

2 apply the SC test to see if it was designed.

Yes, that was me. I am still waiting.

..

The example that I picked was the data that one inserts in to the QR generator. ……(this data could be designed or non-designed)

Which is a very very bad example since QR codes are designed. Regardless of the input being random or not.
QR codes aren't found under a rock. They are produced by QR code generators. Which were designed.
Random input doesn't suddenly turn the QR code into a non-designed object.

So your silly example is a major fail.
Both for your ability to understand a question as well as for your silly SC "method" of detecting design.
You are basically saying that your method can't recognize a QR code as being designed if it doesn't work upon scanning it.
What a rubbish method you have there............

If you apply the test (if it opens a website for example) then you can conclude SC and therefore design.

Your test is ridiculous, because the fact that you decide to scan it, already means that you have recognized a designed object: a human designed 2-dimensional barcode.

Who, why and when it was generated is irrelevant to what it is.

Why don’t you simply admit explicitly that the challenge was answered successfully? So that we can move to a different topic?

Because it wasn't met at all.
You took an object that is KNOWN to be of human design and then went on to make a bunch of irrational and irrelevant statements about it.


I don't need to scan a QR code to know it is a QR code. And by identifying it as a QR code, I know it is of human design.
If a chimp pushes random buttons and by a stroke of luck taps the "enter" key which then generates the QR code, then it is still a QR code. A thing of human design.
A 2-dimensional barcode. It might not work when scanning it, but it would remain a QR code.
There could also be an error in the generator's coding. So a valid web link input could still result in a non-working print-out. It would STILL be a human designed object.


So even if I bent over backwards here and accept your non-example.... then what we end up with is you presenting a method that is inferior to the method I presented in the OP.

My method instantly recognizes a QR code as a manufactured / designed thing, regardless if it works or not.
While your "method" can only recognize a QR code as a manufactured / designed thing, if it actually works.
If not, apparantly a QR code in your universe is indistinguishable from a random rock produced by a natural process.